Download PDF
Thromb Haemost 2022; 122(03): 394-405
DOI: 10.1055/a-1515-9428
Stroke, Systemic or Venous Thromboembolism

A Systematic Review of Economic Aspects of Service Interventions to Increase Anticoagulation Use in Atrial Fibrillation

Nicholas R. Jones
1   Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
,
William Crawford
2   Barts Health NHS Trust, The Royal London Hospital, London, United Kingdom
,
Yaling Yang
1   Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
,
F.D. Richard Hobbs
1   Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
,
Clare J. Taylor
1   Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
,
Stavros Petrou
1   Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
› Author Affiliations Funding N.R.J. is supported by a Wellcome Trust Doctoral Research Fellowship (grant number 203921/Z/16/Z). This project has also received funding from the Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRC) Oxford. F.D.R.H. acknowledges part-funding from the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) School for Primary Care Research, the NIHR Collaboration for Leadership in Health Research and Care (CLARHC) Oxford, the NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre (BRC, UHT) and the NIHR Oxford Medtech and In-Vitro Diagnostics Co-operative (MIC). C.J.T. is supported by an NIHR Academic Clinical Lectureship. S.P. receives support as an NIHR (National Institute for Health Research) Senior Investigator (NF-SI-0616-10103).
› Further Information
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objective To systematically identify and appraise existing evidence surrounding economic aspects of anticoagulation service interventions for patients with atrial fibrillation.

Methods We searched the published and grey literature up to October 2019 to identify relevant economic evidence in any health care setting. A narrative-synthesis approach was taken to summarise evidence by economic design and type of service intervention, with costs expressed in pound sterling and valued at 2017 to 2018 prices.

Results A total of 13 studies met our inclusion criteria from 1,168 papers originally identified. Categories of interventions included anticoagulation clinics (n = 4), complex interventions (n = 4), decision support tools (n = 3) and patient-centred approaches (n = 2). Anticoagulation clinics were cost-saving compared with usual care (range for mean cost difference: £188–£691 per-patient per-year) with equivalent health outcomes. Only one economic evaluation of a complex intervention was conducted; case management was more expensive than usual care (mean cost difference: £255 per-patient per-year) and the probability of its cost-effectiveness did not exceed 70%. There was limited economic evidence surrounding decision support tools or patient-centred approaches. Targeting service interventions at high-risk groups and those with suboptimal treatment was most likely to result in cost savings.

Conclusion This review revealed some evidence to support the cost-effectiveness of anticoagulation clinics. However, summative conclusions are constrained by a paucity of economic evidence, a lack of direct comparisons between interventions, and study heterogeneity in terms of intervention, comparator and study year. Further research is urgently needed to inform commissioning and service development. Data from this review can inform future economic evaluations of anticoagulation service interventions.

Keywords

atrial fibrillation - anticoagulation - service intervention - economic evaluations - systematic review

Author Contributions

N.R.J., C.J.T. and F.D.R.H. devised the idea for the project with input from S.P. and Y.Y. N.R.J. and W.C. conducted data screening, data extraction and quality assessment with guidance and feedback from S.P. N.R.J. wrote the first draft of the manuscript and all authors contributed to subsequent revisions and approved of the final version.


Supplementary Material



Publication History

Received: 16 November 2020

Accepted: 18 May 2021

Accepted Manuscript online:
21 May 2021

Article published online:
11 July 2021

© 2021. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

 

  • References

  • 1 Morillo CA, Banerjee A, Perel P, Wood D, Jouven X. Atrial fibrillation: the current epidemic. J Geriatr Cardiol 2017; 14 (03) 195-203
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Krijthe BP, Kunst A, Benjamin EJ. et al. Projections on the number of individuals with atrial fibrillation in the European Union, from 2000 to 2060. Eur Heart J 2013; 34 (35) 2746-2751
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Hart RG, Pearce LA, Aguilar MI. Meta-analysis: antithrombotic therapy to prevent stroke in patients who have nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. Ann Intern Med 2007; 146 (12) 857-867
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Marzec LN, Wang J, Shah ND. et al. Influence of direct oral anticoagulants on rates of oral anticoagulation for atrial fibrillation. J Am Coll Cardiol 2017; 69 (20) 2475-2484
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Rose AJ, Goldberg R, McManus DD. et al. Anticoagulant prescribing for non-valvular atrial fibrillation in the veterans health administration. J Am Heart Assoc 2019; 8 (17) e012646
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Adderley NJ, Ryan R, Nirantharakumar K, Marshall T. Prevalence and treatment of atrial fibrillation in UK general practice from 2000 to 2016. Heart 2019; 105 (01) 27-33
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 NHS. The NHS long term plan. 2019 . Accessed June 4, 2021 at: https://www.longtermplan.nhs.uk/
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Pritchett RV, Bem D, Turner GM. et al. Improving the prescription of oral anticoagulants in atrial fibrillation: a systematic review. Thromb Haemost 2019; 119 (02) 294-307
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Shamseer L, Moher D, Clarke M. et al; PRISMA-P Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation. BMJ 2015; 350: g7647
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 National Institute For Health and Care Excellence. Single Technology Appraisal (STA). Specification for Manufacture/Sponsor Submission of Evidence. Process and Methods [PMG24]. London: NICE; January 2015 [updated April 2017
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Kanuelis D, Glanville J. Summarized research information retrieval for HTA (SuRE Info): costs and economic evaluation. Accessed September 4, 2019 at: https://vortal.htai.org/?q=sure-info
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network. SIGN search filter for Economic Studies. Healthcare Improvement Scotland. Accessed September 4, 2019 at: https://www.sign.ac.uk/what-we-do/methodology/search-filters/
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 López-López JA, Sterne JAC, Thom HHZ. et al. Oral anticoagulants for prevention of stroke in atrial fibrillation: systematic review, network meta-analysis, and cost effectiveness analysis. BMJ 2017; 359: j5058
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Husereau D, Drummond M, Petrou S. et al; CHEERS Task Force. Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement. BMJ 2013; 346: f1049
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Higgins JP, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC. et al; Cochrane Bias Methods Group, Cochrane Statistical Methods Group. The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 2011; 343: d5928
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Sterne JA, Hernán MA, Reeves BC. et al. ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. BMJ 2016; 355: i4919
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Philips Z, Ginnelly L, Sculpher M. et al. Review of guidelines for good practice in decision-analytic modelling in health technology assessment. Health Technol Assess 2004; 8 (36) iii-iv , ix–xi, 1–158
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Campbell M, McKenzie JE, Sowden A. et al. Synthesis without meta-analysis (SWiM) in systematic reviews: reporting guideline. BMJ 2020; 368: l6890
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Aminde LN, Takah NF, Zapata-Diomedi B, Veerman JL. Primary and secondary prevention interventions for cardiovascular disease in low-income and middle-income countries: a systematic review of economic evaluations. Cost Eff Resour Alloc 2018; 16: 22
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Shemilt I, Thomas J, Morciano M. A web-based tool for adjusting costs to a specific target currency and price year. Evid Policy 2010; 6 (01) 51-59
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Sullivan PW, Arant TW, Ellis SL, Ulrich H. The cost effectiveness of anticoagulation management services for patients with atrial fibrillation and at high risk of stroke in the US. Pharmacoeconomics 2006; 24 (10) 1021-1033
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Caro JJ. An economic model of stroke in atrial fibrillation: the cost of suboptimal oral anticoagulation. Am J Manag Care 2004; 10 (14) S451-S458
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Samsa GP, Matchar DB, Phillips DL, McGrann J. Which approach to anticoagulation management is best? Illustration of an interactive mathematical model to support informed decision making. J Thromb Thrombolysis 2002; 14 (02) 103-111
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 LaHaye SA, Gibbens SL, Ball DG, Day AG, Olesen JB, Skanes AC. A clinical decision aid for the selection of antithrombotic therapy for the prevention of stroke due to atrial fibrillation. Eur Heart J 2012; 33 (17) 2163-2171
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Robson J, Dostal I, Mathur R. et al. Improving anticoagulation in atrial fibrillation: observational study in three primary care trusts. Br J Gen Pract 2014; 64 (622) e275-e281
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Grant AM, Guthrie B, Dreischulte T. Developing a complex intervention to improve prescribing safety in primary care: mixed methods feasibility and optimisation pilot study. BMJ Open 2014; 4 (01) e004153
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Wood KM, Mucklow JC, Boath EH. Influencing prescribing in primary care: a collaboration between clinical pharmacology and clinical pharmacy. Int J Pharm Pract 1997; 5: 1-5
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Faria R, Walker S, Whyte S, Dixon S, Palmer S, Sculpher M. How to invest in getting cost-effective technologies into practice? A framework for value of implementation analysis applied to novel oral anticoagulants. Med Decis Making 2017; 37 (02) 148-161
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Parry D, Bryan S, Gee K, Murray E, Fitzmaurice D. Patient costs in anticoagulation management: a comparison of primary and secondary care. Br J Gen Pract 2001; 51 (473) 972-976
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Ulrich LR, Petersen JJ, Mergenthal K. et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of case management for optimized antithrombotic treatment in German general practices compared to usual care - results from the PICANT trial. Health Econ Rev 2019; 9 (01) 4
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Hendriks J, Tomini F, van Asselt T, Crijns H, Vrijhoef H. Cost-effectiveness of a specialized atrial fibrillation clinic vs. usual care in patients with atrial fibrillation. Europace 2013; 15 (08) 1128-1135
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Sacchi L, Rubrichi S, Rognoni C. et al. From decision to shared-decision: Introducing patients' preferences into clinical decision analysis. Artif Intell Med 2015; 65 (01) 19-28
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Desteghe L, Vijgen J, Koopman P. et al. Telemonitoring-based feedback improves adherence to non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants intake in patients with atrial fibrillation. Eur Heart J 2018; 39 (16) 1394-1403
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Coulter A, Ellins J. Patient-focused interventions: a review of the evidence, Performance QfQaI. The Health Foundation. 2006 . Accessed June 4, 2021 at: https://www.health.org.uk/sites/default/files/PatientFocusedInterventions_ReviewOfTheEvidence.pdf
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Kasmeridis C, Apostolakis S, Ehlers L, Rasmussen LH, Boriani G, Lip GY. Cost effectiveness of treatments for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation: focus on the novel oral anticoagulants. Pharmacoeconomics 2013; 31 (11) 971-980
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Vinogradova Y, Coupland C, Hill T, Hippisley-Cox J. Risks and benefits of direct oral anticoagulants versus warfarin in a real world setting: cohort study in primary care. BMJ 2018; 362: k2505
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Karlsson LO, Nilsson S, Bång M, Nilsson L, Charitakis E, Janzon M. A clinical decision support tool for improving adherence to guidelines on anticoagulant therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation at risk of stroke: a cluster-randomized trial in a Swedish primary care setting (the CDS-AF study). PLoS Med 2018; 15 (03) e1002528
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Willis TA, Hartley S, Glidewell L. et al; ASPIRE programme. Action to Support Practices Implement Research Evidence (ASPIRE): protocol for a cluster-randomised evaluation of adaptable implementation packages targeting ‘high impact’ clinical practice recommendations in general practice. Implement Sci 2016; 11: 25
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 van den Dries CJ, van Doorn S, Rutten FH. et al. Integrated management of atrial fibrillation in primary care: results of the ALL-IN cluster randomized trial. Eur Heart J 2020; 41 (30) 2836-2844
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar